Person-centred dementia services are feasible, but can they be sustained?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: we evaluated a specialist community-based dementia service to establish whether high quality care was being delivered and the conditions for doing so. The service was in an urban part of Rushcliffe Primary Care Trust, Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom. The service comprised an assessment team of an occupational therapist, a community psychiatric nurse and a community care officer, supported by 235 h per week of care delivered by a team of specially trained community care workers. METHODS: a qualitative study was performed using non-participant observation, semi-structured interviews and focus groups, and analysed using a thematic framework approach. There were 2 focus groups involving staff, 11 interviews of staff and stakeholders, and interviews of 15 carers of people with dementia. RESULTS: the care provided was appreciated by carers, and the service was approved by staff and stakeholders. Care was delivered using a rehabilitative style that aimed to maintain personhood, rather than to promote independence. Clients were usually referred with the object of preventing unwanted admission to institutional care but, over time, moving into an institution ceased to be a uniformly undesirable outcome. The service's resources were reduced during the evaluation period, in part to meet mental health needs in intermediate care services. CONCLUSIONS: an appropriately resourced and constructed specialist service using an adaptive rehabilitation approach aimed at maintaining personhood can deliver good individualised care to people with dementia, but specific and appropriate commissioning for these services is needed to nurture them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".